"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
.. .
Of course, before Einstein physicists didn't think Maxwell's
laws would be correct in every observer's reference frame--they
thought they would only hold exactly in the rest frame of the
aether. They would have believed that to state the laws of
electromagnetism in a way that would hold in all frames, you'd
have to replace every x in Maxwell's laws with (x - v*t), where
v represents the observer's velocity relative to the rest frame
of the aether...any derivatives of x would have to be replaced
in the same way, like replacing dx/dt with (dx/dt - v). This
would give a new set of electromagnetic laws which would be
Galilei-invariant, and which would reduce to Maxwell's laws in
the case where v=0.
But a prediction of this Galilei-invariant analogue of
Maxwell's laws would be that for an observer in motion relative
to the aether, light will be observed to move at different
speeds in different directions, relative to himself.
Unfortunately this was not supported by the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The speed of light in diamond, water, air, any transparent
medium is
constant with respect to the medium. MMX fails to support
aether.
In MMX, the medium is air. It is as simple as that.
What do you mean "the medium is air"?
I mean that air was used as a medium for light,
by Michelson, in his interferometer, of course.
He did not perform the experiment in an evacuated chamber, on the
surface
of the moon, or aboard the ISS.
My point was that when waves are considered as a vibration in a
medium, like sound waves, the speed of any wave will be constant
with respect to the rest frame of the medium.
Your points are invariance, x-vt, Maxwell's laws, derivatives,
aether and
anything else you can mention hoping to cover the issue, but you
omitted
to say anything about the physical medium used and asked me what I
meant by it, so clearly it was NOT your point, it is MY point.
Recall that Einstein's second postulate is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body".
Maxwell's laws also say that light's velocity is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body,
For light in a medium. Maxwell believed in aether.
Who cares what Maxwell believed? Maxwell's laws are just a set of
equations telling you how charged objects interact with the
electromagnetic field, and how the electromagnetic field in turn
affects the movements of charged objects. You don't have to believe
in aether
I do not, but Maxwell did. OK? So whatever Maxwell's "laws" may be,
they are premised on aether. There is no aether, so Maxwell has no
law.
If you wish to discuss Maxwell's equations, we can do that. I refuse
to discuss Maxwell's "laws".
[snip]
No, you're wrong. Maxwell's equations are premised on empirical
observations.
(Sigh).
Here's an empirical observation.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/00918-ck.gif
Maxwell's "laws" are NOT based on that empirical observation, and
there are many more like it than Maxwell (or YOU) have never looked at.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00107-de.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00135-di.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00164-dg.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00470-dg.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00526-di.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00359-de.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00588-db.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00029.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00054.gif
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00054.gif
I really don't care if you use air as a medium for light's speed,
because
I agree that the speed of light is medium dependent. I'm sure of it.
Maxwell can base his "laws" on observations made in a medium
until the cows come home, he will never explain that curve, and neither
will you.
I am NOT wrong. YOU are.
Physicists don't believe in aether anymore, but they still use
Maxwell's equations to make predictions about electromagnetic fields,
because the predictions of these equations STILL AGREE WITH
EXPERIMENTS. Are you disagreeing with this?
I'm predicting V1493 Aql will provide another outburst in about 200
years.
Are you disagreeing with me?
Your "physicists" have made every little progress toward controlled
fusion,
they allow relativity to screw them up.
This is a pure mathematical consequence of the equations of Maxwell's
laws.
[snip]
For reference, Maxwell's equations themselves can be found he
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/maxeq.html
I see Gauss, Faraday and Ampere.
Yes, many of the set of equations known as "Maxwell's laws" had
already been discovered before Maxwell. But Maxwell was the first to
write down the complete set of equations for the electromagnetic
field, hence this collection of equations is known as "Maxwell's
laws". If you don't like this terminology, feel free to come up with
some other name for this set of six equations, and we can use that
name for the rest of our discussion; the equations will be the same
either way.
Here's another site which also refers to these equations as "Maxwell's
equations", so you can verify that I'm using the standard terminology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Understand this: Mathematics can only DESCRIBE physics. It cannot
BE physics. If Einstein wants to play games pretending that time is
not invariant by claiming the time for light to get to a distant point
is 1/2 the time it takes to make the round trip, just because he can't
figure it out any other way, he's
1) wrong.
2) dead wrong.
3) an idiot savant.
You can see that "the speed of light is c" is not a
tacked-on-assumption,
Ampere uses it. It IS a tacked on assumption.
Ampere's law does not say anything about the speed of light.
I give up.
There is quite clearly a c^2 in the middle box on the page
you referred to. You are wasting my time. I'll accept Gauss,
I will accept Faraday. Ampere has a speed in it. I dnt care
how many times "physicists" have proven Gauss and Faraday,
I'm not clumping it all together and calling it "Maxwell" proven.
Androcles.